User talk:Cindamuse/Archive 36
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | → | Archive 40 |
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and apologies
Just wanted to thank you for reformatting the images in the Murray Korman article and to apologize for a knee-jerk reaction that made me want to put the drawing back next to the passage about his illustration career and the full-length portrait next to the passage on his photography career. I had immediate second thoughts and I now agree totally with your edits. Now maybe I'll learn not to act impulsively :-) --Ailemadrah (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 July 2013
- In the media: Wikipedia flamewars
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion
- Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more
- Traffic report: Gleeless
- Featured content: Engineering and the arts
- Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Is it cheeky to give one of these to my own collaborator? I'll have to take the chance. Thanks for setting up this one close enough to the goal line for me to nudge it across--your work is much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC) |
MfD nomination of User:Samantha Beddingham/Rebecca Lindsey
User:Samantha Beddingham/Rebecca Lindsey, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Samantha Beddingham/Rebecca Lindsey and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Samantha Beddingham/Rebecca Lindsey during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Photo deleted before contest
Hi Cindy, I saw your message about speedy deletion of File:Brent Maher sitting at console in color.jpg for the page "Brent Maher." I didn't get the chance to contest the speedy deletion before the picture was removed. Is there anything I can do about it now? There was not copyright infringement - I didn't get the picture from any outside website or source. The owner of the copyright emailed the photo directly to me. Thanks. Kkoakes (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you stated that the image came from http://www.brentmaher.com/about.html, indicating that the website offered a licensing statement, which was not found at the site. Again, we need authorization from the photographer/copyright holder or a release from an individual using an email address which is associated with the official website of the content, or the site where the content was originally published. Remember, authorization from the copyright holder requires verification, rather than mere assertion. If you are able to provide verifiable authorization from the copyright holder, feel free to contact us again at <permissions-en@wikimedia.org>. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 15:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Presbyterian Church in Korea
I see you have moved Presbyterian Church in Korea (HapDongBoSu I.) to Presbyterian Church in Korea HapDongBoSu I. Can I take it that you are going to be consistent and move all the other similarly named articles in Category:Presbyterian denominations in South Korea? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- So many things I wish I could do if only there were enough hours in the day. Grateful that I'm not the only one around. Alas, I don't want to take all the glory. ;) In this case, I just focused on the ones I saw while taking a few moments at NPP. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 18:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
- Recent research: Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview
- Traffic report: Bouncing Baby Brouhaha
- WikiProject report: Babel Series: Politics on the Turkish Wikipedia
- News and notes: Gearing up for Wikimania 2013
- Arbitration report: Race and politics case closes
- Featured content: Caterpillars, warblers, and frogs—oh my!
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Infobox country
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox country. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: July 2013
| ||||||
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
- Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case
- Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard
- News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech
- Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess
- Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Civility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up
Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter
 We have completed our July backlog elimination drive. The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review. – Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor. Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
|
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2013
- News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches
- In the media: Chinese censorship
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS
- WikiProject report: For the love of stamps
- Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- EdwardsBot (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Photo of Dr. Julie Holland
Hello! You left a message on my Talk page about the photo of Dr. Julie Holland I previously submitted. She'd sent it to me, thinking that she could have the photographer sign the release, and then couldn't track the photographer down. I switched out the photo and used another, complete with the proper license forwarded. Is there anything I need to do re: the first photo, or will it just be deleted? Thanks! (The article is sitting in the queue at AfC.) JSFarman (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, we don't have permission yet for either image. Unless we can verify permission for use under an allowable license, the content will likely be deleted. Can you have the photographer/copyright owner send in the authorization to the OTRS team? Best regards, Cindy(talk) 04:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
COI SPA editor
Are you good at dealing with COI editors? User:Gizgalasi, who has now begun to focus on the Tom Reiss article, is a WP:COI editor [1], Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_54#Ali_and_Nino:_A_Love_Story, who writes for Azerbaijan International, who has been warned several times on his Talk page not to edit on articles regarding or associated with Ali and Nino: A Love Story, Lev Nussimbaum, or Kurban Said. Nor should he be editing on Azerbaijan International. However, in point of fact all of his edits have been COI SPA edits, and he is engaged in edit wars with those attempting to keep matters neutral, encyclopedic, and free of COI. User:Qwyrxian has warned him numerous times on his Talk page to desist from editing on any of these articles, but was reluctant to take action because he is an admin and has also edited those articles. However, I think at this point an ANI discussion regarding official topic-banning or blocking (Qwyrxian mentioned blocking on that Talk page, but not to be carried out by him) might be in order. What do you think? Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey there! Hope you're doing well. As far as Gizgalasi, the blatant concerns revolve around the POV and edit warring. The direct concern I see is an attempt to use a BLP to discredit an individual's work, rather than maintaining neutrality. At this point, it's escalated to a conflict dispute. Community policy reminds us that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at WP:NPOV. I would recommend following the steps outlined at WP:DR. These steps are designed to help us work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community. A list of ways you can seek dispute resolution can be found at WP:DRR. Try DR and see how the other editor responds. The goal is to work as a team toward consensus to make sure the project comes first. If the other editor fails to respond (ignores the request for DR, while continuing to revert to restore POV), I would go ahead with placing a notice at ANI. Hope this helps. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 06:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, Cindy. I mainly agree with your points concerning the Reiss article; however my concern with this editor spans all the many articles he has edited and censored relating to Nussimbaum. The POV editing and censorship got so bad that The Guardian wrote an article about it in 2011 (note the mention of Wikipedia): [2]. I think the only way to deal with the multiple-article POV censorship is to continue to enforce Qwyrxian's suggested topic ban, and if that doesn't work, to go to ANI to report the COI SPA (every edit he has ever made has been a COI edit promoting or quoting Azerbaijan International and its views and articles) as well as the POV, edit-warring, bullying, and censorship. I have no problem, if there were to be an article on The Orientalist, to have a mention (submitted by a non-COI editor) that Reiss' attribution of Ali and Nino to Nussimbaum was disputed by a single issue of Azerbaijan International but nowhere else, and that all major reliable sources and scholars agree with Reiss. But that doesn't belong in a short summary section in a BLP article. Anyway, I contacted you because you are so active on Wiki I thought you might be an expert in COI problems. I'll take it up with Q and others if the problem persists. :) I hope you are continuing to improve healthwise. I saw somewhere on your Talk page that you were still having some pain -- I'm quite sorry to hear that and I wish you a full and speedy recovery from that, so that you can put all that behind you. I also saw that you're being nommed for admin, so best of luck with that! Thanks for all your help and your great contributions. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- My health? I'm trying to stay positive, but in a LOT of pain today. Ugh. (Thank you for the kind words. I'm enjoying a visit with Dr. Pepper right now, so should be feeling better soon.) I agree that Giz is troubling across several articles. About Q's suggested topic ban? It is unenforceable. See WP:Banning policy. Sure, he could be blocked for promotional editing, along with the POV and edit warring, if warranted, but a topic ban in this initial situation may only be established as a result of community consensus. Please understand that while an existing COI or SPA editing may be a concern, having a conflict of interest and focusing on one topic (or purpose) is not forbidden. What truly matters is how the COI is manifested in the individual's editing practices. Those are the issues that need to be addressed. If you were to go to ANI, one of the first questions you would be asked is how you attempted to resolve the concerns with the other editor. I've gone through Giz' talk page history and haven't found any attempts by you to communicate and/or resolve the editing dispute. Sure, BMK and Q attempted to reason with Giz, but it was unproductive. I would recommend changing your focus from "COI SPA" to the manifestations of your concern, i.e., "POV, edit-warring, bullying, and censorship", then providing diffs to locations where these concerns are presented. While both BMK and Q attempted to bring resolve, none was reached previously at their reports to ANI. Any report needs to focus on the action(s) that affect the community and project. Note that part of the dispute resolution process includes opting to file an WP:RFC/U, which you may want to check out. Hope this helps. If you need additional feedback, feel free to let me know. (On another note, I'm reading The Orientalist now, which will likely bring about an article on the book before long.) Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Cindamuse, I'm jumping in here since I'm mentioned. I have a question for Softlavender that would actually really help not only the Reiss article, but actually all of the associated articles on Ali and Nino, Essed Bey, etc. You say above that "all major reliable sources and scholars agree with Reiss". Back when I first got into this with Gizgalasi (and I should note that I was asked to do this by a friend who saw an article on the matter in The Guardian), the problem I had was that since I don't have easy access to scholarly sources, I couldn't tell to what extent the two theories are supported. For all I could see, Reiss was also just a "lone voice" proposing one particular theory. If we could get evidence that other sources also support Reiss's theory, and that there hasn't been any particular support of the AI theory, then 1) we would need to massively rewrite all of the articles related to Ali and Nino, since right now they basically say that AI is the "main" theory, such that they clearly place the Reiss theory in primacy and only mention the AI as an alternative theory and 2) would block Gizgalasi for any interference in that process (she/he could continue to discuss the matter, and even use dispute resolution, but the promotional intent makes it clear that article editing to protect AI is no longer acceptable). So if you have scholarly sources that clearly give support to Reiss (for instance, if another scholar cited The Orientalist and treated it as fact), that would be the first step in making these articles actually conform to our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well said. Jump in anytime. An ample selection of academic analysis can be found here. Cindy(talk) 01:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Note to Q: All but two of the citations I listed in the Reiss article are written by noted scholars and historians (and I wikilinked them). The AI theory is, except in Azerbaijan and Turkey, a fringe theory and seen as basically a spasm of anti-Semitism from Azerbaijan at the horror that their beloved novel was written by a Jew (e.g.: "We need to nationalize Ali and Nino. ... Tom Reiss is trying to make a Jew out of [the author]." [3]). No scholar in the Anglophone world that I'm aware of, even after investigation, has considered the AI story valid. Reiss covers the AI-proposed author in his book, and explains that that author did not write the novel because the novel espouses a world-view that that author despised and that on the other hand Nussimbaum was noted for, and he meanwhile gives the paper trail (agreed-upon even by AI) that proves Nussimbaum=Said, and of course Bey. Yes, we need to take back Wikipedia and get rid of the domination of AI propaganda across the board, although it could be an aside in the Ali and Nino article. I don't even think Reiss has publically responded to the AI issue, because probably in his opinion it didn't merit responding to. I could perhaps try to contact him and ask him if he's made a statement. Softlavender (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Cindamuse, I'm jumping in here since I'm mentioned. I have a question for Softlavender that would actually really help not only the Reiss article, but actually all of the associated articles on Ali and Nino, Essed Bey, etc. You say above that "all major reliable sources and scholars agree with Reiss". Back when I first got into this with Gizgalasi (and I should note that I was asked to do this by a friend who saw an article on the matter in The Guardian), the problem I had was that since I don't have easy access to scholarly sources, I couldn't tell to what extent the two theories are supported. For all I could see, Reiss was also just a "lone voice" proposing one particular theory. If we could get evidence that other sources also support Reiss's theory, and that there hasn't been any particular support of the AI theory, then 1) we would need to massively rewrite all of the articles related to Ali and Nino, since right now they basically say that AI is the "main" theory, such that they clearly place the Reiss theory in primacy and only mention the AI as an alternative theory and 2) would block Gizgalasi for any interference in that process (she/he could continue to discuss the matter, and even use dispute resolution, but the promotional intent makes it clear that article editing to protect AI is no longer acceptable). So if you have scholarly sources that clearly give support to Reiss (for instance, if another scholar cited The Orientalist and treated it as fact), that would be the first step in making these articles actually conform to our rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- My health? I'm trying to stay positive, but in a LOT of pain today. Ugh. (Thank you for the kind words. I'm enjoying a visit with Dr. Pepper right now, so should be feeling better soon.) I agree that Giz is troubling across several articles. About Q's suggested topic ban? It is unenforceable. See WP:Banning policy. Sure, he could be blocked for promotional editing, along with the POV and edit warring, if warranted, but a topic ban in this initial situation may only be established as a result of community consensus. Please understand that while an existing COI or SPA editing may be a concern, having a conflict of interest and focusing on one topic (or purpose) is not forbidden. What truly matters is how the COI is manifested in the individual's editing practices. Those are the issues that need to be addressed. If you were to go to ANI, one of the first questions you would be asked is how you attempted to resolve the concerns with the other editor. I've gone through Giz' talk page history and haven't found any attempts by you to communicate and/or resolve the editing dispute. Sure, BMK and Q attempted to reason with Giz, but it was unproductive. I would recommend changing your focus from "COI SPA" to the manifestations of your concern, i.e., "POV, edit-warring, bullying, and censorship", then providing diffs to locations where these concerns are presented. While both BMK and Q attempted to bring resolve, none was reached previously at their reports to ANI. Any report needs to focus on the action(s) that affect the community and project. Note that part of the dispute resolution process includes opting to file an WP:RFC/U, which you may want to check out. Hope this helps. If you need additional feedback, feel free to let me know. (On another note, I'm reading The Orientalist now, which will likely bring about an article on the book before long.) Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, Cindy. I mainly agree with your points concerning the Reiss article; however my concern with this editor spans all the many articles he has edited and censored relating to Nussimbaum. The POV editing and censorship got so bad that The Guardian wrote an article about it in 2011 (note the mention of Wikipedia): [2]. I think the only way to deal with the multiple-article POV censorship is to continue to enforce Qwyrxian's suggested topic ban, and if that doesn't work, to go to ANI to report the COI SPA (every edit he has ever made has been a COI edit promoting or quoting Azerbaijan International and its views and articles) as well as the POV, edit-warring, bullying, and censorship. I have no problem, if there were to be an article on The Orientalist, to have a mention (submitted by a non-COI editor) that Reiss' attribution of Ali and Nino to Nussimbaum was disputed by a single issue of Azerbaijan International but nowhere else, and that all major reliable sources and scholars agree with Reiss. But that doesn't belong in a short summary section in a BLP article. Anyway, I contacted you because you are so active on Wiki I thought you might be an expert in COI problems. I'll take it up with Q and others if the problem persists. :) I hope you are continuing to improve healthwise. I saw somewhere on your Talk page that you were still having some pain -- I'm quite sorry to hear that and I wish you a full and speedy recovery from that, so that you can put all that behind you. I also saw that you're being nommed for admin, so best of luck with that! Thanks for all your help and your great contributions. Softlavender (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Ha. I just found his e-address and sent him an e-mail myself an hour ago. It might make more sense for him to talk to me, since I've read The Orientalist and know the issues involved. Although if you want to chime in too as someone who has already spoken to him, and who might explain other facets I've missed, good. Softlavender (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Adminship Deux 2
I'm glad your surgery went well first of all :). Also remembered back in March I offered to nominate you for administrative status (RFA) and you said to revisit by the end of May User_talk:Cindamuse/Archive_33#Adminship.3F? Are you willing to accept a nomination now, you could definitely use the tools with OTRS and all. I could write a nomination by the end of this week, let me know. Thanks Secret account 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey there! Thanks for the well wishes on my surgery. After all this time, I'm still experiencing pain... but I'm a fighter. ;) I would be honored with a nomination. I'm currently having my kitchen and bathroom renovated, which should be done the first of the week, so the middle of next week should be a good time to start the RFA. Feel free to contact me with any questions either here or through email. Thanks again! Cindy(talk) 22:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Re RHaworth
Cindamuse, by doing what you have just done in regards to this article, you are making Wikipedia a worse place not a better place. RHaworth, knows nothing about Sumo, the Musashigawa stable is one of the most prestigious stables in Sumo. It has produce many top ranking sumo's, including 1 yokozuna and 3 sekiwake. By doing what he did is vandalism based on ignorance. And what you are doing is protagonising the situation. I will be making a complaint about you and RHaworth once I have received a 3rd party opinion. leveni Aug 2013
- Indepth knowledge of various subjects on Wikipedia is not required in order to assess articles to determine if they are appropriate for the encyclopedia. In order to establish notability, we require that all assertions of significance and importance are verified by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At this point, the article does not meet the threshold for inclusion. While Musashigawa stable may be exactly how you represent it to be, we really need to verify your assertions. I apologize that Wikipedia has become frustrating for you. Please understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Several thousand editors are working together to help make Wikipedia the best that it can be. In order to do this, the community has established policies and guidelines that govern our work to ensure the best possible outcome. I realize that it is difficult for some individuals to understand these guidelines. I am more than willing to help you in any way I can, as you acclimate to the community and learn the expectations of what it means to be a Wikipedian, i.e., a Wikipedia editor. That said, you really need to take a step back and try to learn from editors who have been here a while. Nobody is out to get you. We would like you to stick around, learn what we do here, and join in with us. Again, I'm more than willing to help out. I highly recommend that you participate in the deletion discussion and work to address any issues that are presented there. You are also welcome at any time to file a complaint against myself or any of my colleagues. If you need help in doing that, feel free to drop me a line. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 15:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
This is what I submitted to the Admin notice board [Link]. Although I mentioned no names, the policy said I had to notify all those involved. Leveni--Leveni (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Wikipedia articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)